From: pmichaels@aol.com
Date: Thu 05 May 1994 - 07:10:42 EEST
Hi folks!
Sorry I've been gone so long. Had LOTS of various family stuff to do.
So, I apologize if the first part of this post goes back a bit to an old
topic that I just want to finish up.
way back when Bryan also stated (on my ideas regarding Glorantha and
constructivism):
>I find what Peter has posted to be interesting, and worthy of further
>investigation if not acceptance on the face of it (nothing is acceptable on
>the face of it, by the way).
The only thing I accept at face value is my own beard, even that I shave
off every once in a while. ;
-)
I'm glad you find it interesting and worthy of further investigation.
That's a
ll I was really hoping for by bringing up the subject.
I'd like to hear other people's stories about the Heroplane and how they
make sense of it in relation to Glorantha. My story currently is that it is
the
obviously constructivist (to me, anyway) as Glorantha, ALL these stories
stage upon which the stories that socially construct Glorantha are played
out. But this
is just one story, one way to think about the Heroplane.
Another story, such as Colin's, is just fine too. I think that in a place as
web of his Heroplane. To me, it's ALL a metaphore, it's all a story. Al
l of
the Heroplane is just stories! BUT, (and here's the important piece) these
stories, these metaphores, these myths, are what create the experienced
reality of the people living in Glorantha.
Personally, I think it's that way here too. At least as far as people are
concerned. I'm
not so nuts that I'd say that the only reason I can
communicate with you is because enough people in the world all agree
that this thing on my desk we all decide to call a computer is a tool for
commu
nication and not a tool for brewing beer. I'm not a radical
constructivist. Nor do I believe t
hat events are "just stories." Charles
Gregory Fried mentioned that some folks feel the Holoca
ust was "just a
story." I am not one of them. My mother and her family were in
Shanghai when it was occupied by the Japanese. My grandfather was
picked up and taken to the Hongkew internment camp with prominent UK
and USA officials. He was tortured for two days before the Japanese
admitted that he was Belgian, and he was sent to join my grandmother,
mother, and uncle in the Lungh Wa camp. When my grandfather was
picked up, the Japanese had a story that he was American. Everything
he said or did was interpreted as an American being disrespectful,
uncooperative, and trying to make fools of them. My grandparents had a
story of themselves as survivors, not victims, as did many of those who
had lived through the greater horrors of the Nazi concentration camps.
What happens to people is real. Events are real. It is the story we make
up about those events that is socially constructed. Believing is s
eeing,
NOT seeing is believing. It is the meanings people draw from events, the
"what re
ally happened and what it all means," that are created by the
individual through language, and language is formed in the context of
social communication. The language we use both internally and
externally, the stories we tell about ourselves and others, creates the
meaning of what we experience. This is of import in Glorantha when, for
example, people try to make sense of the stories they are told of their
peoples and their gods. What does it mean that Orlanth killed Yelm?
The Orlanthi interpret this
as meaning something like: "Yelm was killed
for not acknowledging the might and right of Or
lanth." The Solar people
interpret this as meaning something like: "Yelm's son Muharzam wa
s
killed by a rebelious upstart who would not stay in his place in the
universe." The impact of these meanings on the respective cultures is
enormous. But, what if the Orlanthi were to reinterpret their part of the
myth differently? Maybe as something about Orlanth being called upon
to kill Yelm in order to aid him in learning about death and dying?
Orlanth as teacher, instead of Orlanth as bully? If the whole of Orlanthi
society really believe this, and practiced this belief, and changed their
rituals to reflect this changed belief, then I think the reality of Glorantha
would be changed. (NOT that I think this has a chance of happening. The mythic struggle between the two is just too great at the moment, and neither of them have a different manifestation of their mythic/(runic?) opposite to form a different struggle with.) Anyway, this is what I mean when I say that I think Glorantha is a constructivist place.
On to other things.
More recently, Paul Reilly mentions:
> Primal Darkness mating is pretty indistinguishable from eating: they
> bite hunks off of each other.
I agree! I think trolls experience pleasure in biting. In fact, I think
part of
the trollish sexual response, part of their arousal, includes getting hungry.
In addition, I think female trolls have a biting reflex on reaching orgasm.
I
see this response being almost uncontrollable in Mistress race trolls,
somewhat controllable in Dark trolls, and almost non-existant in trollkin.
This would mean that food also plays an important part in Uz seduction
and sex. Male trolls would always bring food for their mates, perhaps in
the belief (hope) it would lessen the biting response to the point that they
will not accidently be bitten to death
. Any males who do die are probably
just eaten. Remember, they weren't killed for food, i
t was "a crime of
passion." Maybe the trolls create enchanted lead biting sticks for females
with a particularly powerful bite response. Male trolls are probably proud
of their "love-bite"
scars on their face, neck, and shoulders.
Makes me wonder if the (admittedly rare) troll Uleria worshipper would
draw the more masochistic type of client, becoming the S&M specialist in
the templ
e. Gleaming black leather, lead chains.... She : "Kiss the whip,
you human!" He : "O
h please! Please just bite me again!" Gives a whole
new meaning to the words "Mistress"
troll!
Sandy says:
> It is my firm belief that ducks and keets lay eggs, which they must
>incubate in a nest until they hatch. My reasons for so believing are
>solely based on the comic possibilities of such an arrangement
>("Please, sir, could you hold the egg for me while I go shopping.")
I don
't know. There's something about the RQ 2 interpretation of ducks
not knowing their origins that I really like. Were they originally human
and became feathered and web-footed, or originally ducks cursed with
flightlessness and intelligence? If the ONLY human characteristics they
have are i
ntelligence (something a small percentage of ALL creatures (I'll
avoid the dangerous "s
pecies" word) have anyway) and flightlessness
due to having arms and hands, I think you lost a lot of the duckish
mystery. I think this mystery is at the heart of the duckish race. It
colors
their psy
chology, makes them neurotic, is something they obsess about.
It's the source of their racial insecurity. Think about it. They are a
small
people who taste good to all other carnivores and so are often prey to
both intelligent and animal hunters. They do not posess any great magic,
strength, intelligence, or cunning and so sometimes feel inferior to
anything larger than themselves (or even to many things smaller). Some
ducks probably attempt to feel superior at the expense of other creatures,
including other ducks, which leads to them being mean, petty, self-
centered, bullying punks. Other ducks try to gain sympathy from others
by whining and complaining, and they are expert at nagging and
pestering others. Still others use the fact that other races find them
amusing, and seek acceptance by trying to be funny and make others
laugh. Much as the Uz seek the goal of healing Korasting, I think the
duck goal is to regain whatever it was that was lost by their curse,
whether it was the ability to fly or their humanity. It is the desire to
return
to their true, most ancient way of life. For those that seek the ability to
fly,
there is a longing for the lost freedom of the sky. For those that seek
their
humanity and not to be hunted, there is the longing for the lost
brotherhood of Man. I also think that some ducks seek either of these
goals just because they hate the idea that something that once belonged
to them was taken away, and they want it back out of pure selfishness.
Personally, I think the Duck race are at LEAST a creation of Trickster,
more probably a case of multiple incarnations of his
"tragically comic"
role. They obviously exist to be made fun of. (And, some would add
, to
be eaten. It's a mythic nitch thing. Dwarves are Makers, Elves are
Growers, Trolls are E
aters, Ducks are the Eaten.) In a letter in TOTRM#2,
Greg Stafford writes, "Ducks are intended to
be comic. I usually ridicule
them, both as a GM and as a NPC." And Sandy notes, "After all
, if your
ducks aren't funny, why have them at all?"
>This is also why Greg and I concur that duck
s have teeth (so they can
>grin).
In John Castellucci's RQAF#2, S.P. Martin says it's so that the
y can hold
their cigars! ;-)
Well, enough of this for now. Until next time, Peace, Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:08 EEST